Somerled7

58 minutes ago, almcl said:

May have misunderstood this, but if it's the Skywatcher Extension tube (pics below) then the top mounting bolt includes a ballrace/washer arrangement that allows azimuth adjustment via the adjusters on the north peg, even when the head is tightened down quite severely.

My experieence is that both this and the north peg need to be as tight as reasonable (don't strip the threads!)

Excellent - that answers my question. I have not been able to find a picture of the top adaptor, so I wondered how it works. It's different to the standard tripod which just bolts up tight. I assume the pillar mount will have the same top plate adaptor as your extension tube. Thanks a lot. 

A question for anyone with the Skywatcher pillar mount. I am thinking of buying one for my HEQ5 to avoid potential collisions between the scope and the tripod legs. I understand that there is an adaptor with a central bolt that screws into the bottom of the mount head, then the adaptor sits in the top of the pillar and is secured by three bolts around the top of the pillar. How does this work for polar alignment? With the tripod, I loosen the central bolt, perform my  alignment, then tighten the central bolt and check that the alignment is still good. With the pillar, the central fixing bolt is not accessible, so does this have to be left slightly loose? I could not find any You-Tube vides that address this point, so any info from an owner would be welcome.

Thanks for all the replies. In the end my night was scuppered not by a computing problem but a mechanical one - my mount was tracking weirdly, and when I opened it up I had a badly deformed belt drive. So I need a new belt and am in discussion with Rowan Engineering about what went wrong. My experience of astro-photography is that everything is a potential problem - it's just a question of which problem manifests itself on any given night!  

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Don't forget that plate solving isn't compulsory. You can derive the RA and Dec co-ordinates of your image centre from a planetarium loaded with your specific field of view and then go to a nearby star, re-centre your mount on that star, then simply drive to the co-ordinates manually.

Olly

Yes, I could have tried a more 'manual' approach.  However this was only one of several problems on a frustrating night that ended with me giving up! I know what the source of the other problems were, but couldn't figure out the plate solving issue and wondered whether there might be some setting in APT or ASTAP that I had forgotten about.

On 30/11/2023 at 10:59, Paul M said:

I say it isn't a plate solving issue, more an issue with APT/Ascom failing to drive the mount to the required coordinates.

I've had issues with APT doing odd things ocassionally. Including events like yours.

Shutting down and restarting APT or even a full reboot usually returns normality.

I've got bogged down, over thinking problems in the past. But now just bite the bullet and restart.

It's likely that you won't even be able to replicate this particular problem on your next outing!

 

 

Thanks Paul - yes, I was more successful the following night, so hopefully a one-off. 

19 hours ago, wongataa said:

What happens if you try a different plate solver?

I didn't try that as I don't have another plate solver set up - something I should do in case of problems. Anyway, tried again last night and it plate solved successfully, so no idea what the problem was.  

Last night I came across a problem with APT trying to plate solve to the Lobster Claw Nebula. I have an HEQ5 connected via the Synscan wifi module and I'm using the ASTAP solver. Usually it works fine, but this time it solved the first image than said it could not move the scope to the new location. Here's the APT log after the solve:-

2023/11/28 23:32:00 (UT 2023/11/28 23:32:00) DBG      RelativeGoTo - SRa:23.256415317, SDec:60.174225994, TRa:23.254444444, TDec:60.174166667, RRa:22.345884323, RDec:55.016101837, NRa:24.164975438, NDec:65.332290823

2023/11/28 23:32:00 (UT 2023/11/28 23:32:00) OpErr    Cannot slew to coordinates.   Exception occurred.

2023/11/28 23:32:00 (UT 2023/11/28 23:32:00) OpErr    PointCraft Error: Can't move the telescope.

So the solver worked OK and showed the scope was off by about 1 unit in RA and 5 in Dec, but then it failed to move.  

I tried changing the target Dec to a random value of  55deg and it plate solved to the location no problem, then re-tried the Claw Nebula location again at dec 60deg and the same failure. For some reason, it seemed like it didn't like those particular co-ordinates! Any ideas?

The Crescent Nebula in Cygnus. I have been trying to get into Narrow-Band imaging for about a year, gradually adding a cooled mono camera, filters, filter wheel and electronic focuser to my kit. I have finally got everything working together (almost!) and have something I think is worth sharing. This is an HOO image with 1hr 15min of H-alpha and 1 hr of OIII. I had hoped to get twice that amount but I left the kit running unattended and when I came back the camera had hung up on downloading images, so I lost a couple of hours. I think it was an intermittent USB problem, so still some things to sort out! 

Equipment: Skywatcher HEQ5 mount, Altair Astro EDF72 scope with 0.8 reducer giving F4.8 at 345mm focal length, Altair Astro 183MM cooled camera, Baader 7nm H-alpha filter and 8.5nm OIII filter.  I've used minimum gain and 300s subs to try to avoid saturating the stars, which I find happens very easily with this camera.  I think I still need to experiment with the spacing behind the field flattener as the star shapes go off in the corners, but I don't think they are too bad until you pixel peep.

Any suggestions for improvement welcome. 

1 hour ago, Clarkey said:

Great effort. The Ha filter and camera modification will certainly increase your range of targets.

Yes. After the 'big 3' of Andromeda, Orion and Pleiades, the next targets like the Heart, North America and Flaming Star are much harder with an unmodified camera.

I've been slowly upgrading my Astro kit for about 18 months now, and the most recent upgrade was to astro modify my little Canon EOS100D camera. I've also bought a Baader 7nm H-alpha filter for use when the moon is up. I'm now experimenting with combining H-alpha and RGB images, starting with the Flaming Star nebula. I managed 11 hours of H-alpha (15min exposures) over 2 nights under a 70% moon.  The RGB data is 2 hrs 30 mins (5min exposures) taken a while ago. Unfortunately they were at different focal lengths - 432mm H-alpha and 300mm RGB, and don't even entirely overlap, so the bottom right side is lacking RGB data. I've stacked in DSS and processed in Photoshop, adding the H-alpha as a luminosity layer over the RGB data and manually aligning the stars as best I could!

I know I should gather better quality RGB data at the matching focal length/orientation, so that's the plan for the next clear moonless night, but any other advice/feedback welcome.

Camera: Modified Canon EOS100D,  Scope: H-Alpha - Altair 72EDF, RGB - Canon 300mm F4L. Mount: Skywatcher HEQ5. H-Alpha Filter:  Baader 7nm, RGB Filter: Astronomik CLS clip-in. 

Haven't been back to check replies because I've been busy elsewhere.  I ended up with different exposure length subs by accident rater than design. Looking for something to image under a bright moon (mainly for practice!) I opted for the Double Cluster in Perseus. As the moon was bright, I took shorter subs than I normally use to avoid over-exposing the sky. I had some older images with longer subs of the same subject, so was looking to see if I could combine them.  In the end, I stacked each set separately, then overlaid and combined in Photoshop - interesting to see the noise reducing as the two stacked images were combined.

I've been taking a look at SIRIL for stacking and initial processing, but run into a problem of stacking images with different exposure times. In DSS there are different tabs to group Light files along with their corresponding Dark Files, but I don't see anything similar in SIRIL. Is it a case of throwing everything in and the program sorts it out, or is it necessary to stack each set of images separately then combine the final stacked results? Can anyone advise?

In my first winter of Astro-Photography, I've wanted to at least get decent images of the 'big 3' - Pleiades, Andromeda and Orion. Sounds easy, but it's surprising how much clouds and the moon get in the way - this hobby would be a lot easier to learn if there weren't 4 weeks between each outing! Anyway, here finally is my best effort on Orion. It's only about an hour of total integration time, but ClearOutside was lying when it promised an entirely clear night - after a couple of hours the clouds moved in and by the time they cleared, Orion was sinking behind the neighbours house.  21 x 200s exposures at F6, ISO400, with darks, flats and bias. Stacked in DSS and edited in Photoshop. I've tried extracting the stars with Starnet++ part way through the edit, then re-introduced them at the end. I was quite pleased to start to get some of the darker brown dust showing up.

Unmodified Canon EOS80D, Altair Astro EDF72, HEQ5 Mount, QHY5LII GuideCam, Altair Astro 60mm Guide Scope, Pegasus Power Box, Bortle 5 skies.

6 hours ago, masjstovel said:

I also love the image. Alot of good detail!

I am definately no expert, and your Andromeda looks better than mine, but if I got paid to find "problems" I would say:

1. I think i see 3 spots of sensor-dust (?), middle just above Andromeda, over the top right corner of Andromeda, and in the middle in the very bottom. 
2. This is only a subjective opinion, but i think it looks a bit flat color-wise. I also think there is a yellow-ish tone over the whole image - like if the white balance is too warm. 

 

Thanks for the feedback - you have looked closely! Immediately after posting the image, I spotted the sensor spot directly above the galaxy, but I didn't see the other two. Easy to correct using the Photoshop healing brush, then bring the stars back - we don't want an interstellar incident by destroying someone's star! Point taken on the blues, which I had also noticed when compared to other people's images. I don't think I've got enough detail in the outer reaches to capture much of the blue, though I could adjust the colour balance slightly.

4 hours ago, Snoani said:

I can't claim to be an expert in any way but it looks good to me.  A really nice image.  

When zooming in it looks like you have a hint of DSLR walking noise.  If you didn't do so, I would recommend that you consider dithering as it a god send, particularly when using a DSRL.  

That said, it doesn't remove anything from this image and you should be pleased.    

I did use dithering, but just the default levels from APT. Maybe I could look at something more aggressive.  Update -  Just checked the APT settings, and the default dither level is very small, so I obviously didn't dither enough (though my wife would probably say otherwise!!) 

After getting a Pegasus Power Box, some dew heaters and a 12V Leisure Battery, I can now shoot all night without worrying about due or running out of camera battery power. Tried it out on Andromeda for 6 hours before it disappears into the west, and here's the end result.

43 x 500s exposures.

25 x 500s Darks

50 x Flats

50 x Bias

Equipment is a stock Canon EOS80D, Altair Astro EDF72, Skywatcher HEQ5, Skywatcher Light Pollution Filter, taken with APT and PHD guiding, stacked in DSS and edited in Photoshop.  Taken under Bortle 5 skies (Sky Mag 20) at about -2degC and 98% humidity. 

I'm very pleased with it as I think it's the first time (since re-starting this hobby in May) that I've got a set of Lights which are not compromised in some way (eg full moon, dew on the lens, dodgy star shapes etc).  However, all the experts on here can probably see lots of problems with what I've done or not done, so feedback welcome, as it's the only way to progress. Also interested to know if there would be any benefit in gathering even more hours exposure to add into the image - I plan to keep the raw files.  

On 28/12/2020 at 15:02, Adam1234 said:

Hi, I would personally keep all of your light frames from the previous sessions and stack them all together with new light frames from your next session (s).

It is possible to stack frames from each session, and then stack the resulting images (I've no idea if the result would be the same or worse than stacking all frames together, someone else may be able to answer that). 

The reason I would suggest keeping all your light frames regardless is that as your processing skills improve you may wish to revisit old data, and it certainly helps if you have the originals files, especially if you want to re-process from scratch using different software and experiment with registration/stacking/rejection parameters.

 

It's a good point about processing skills improving. However I'm still finding that my subs are often compromised in some way - last few attempts it's been dew and moonlight, not so bad to ruin the night, but not really good enough to re-use if I get better data. So, if I get some good subs, I'll keep them, otherwise I think I'll just process to the best I can, then move on.

16 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Maybe try to asses "speed" at which gradient is progressing. If it is at sidereal rate (exposure length x 15" = progression) then it could be due to tracking.

If it does not look like cloud then it is probably some sort of light shining down the tube (or in case of newtonian can sometimes be from other side if mirror is exposed for ventilation - but you don't have any spikes in the image so I guess not newtonian). It could be reflection of something rather than direct light - maybe piece of rain gutter reflecting street lamp or something? What is your environment like?

There is easy way to figure out if it is the light or shadow. Light will raise background values but leave stars the same intensity - shadow will block both background and stars. One is additive (adds light), other is multiplicative (only percent of light reached). Measure intensity of the same star over range of images to see what is going on (if you are really interested in that sort of thing ).

 

 

Thanks Vlaiv. Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think it's dew or ice as the stars remain sharp across the image. As I mentioned, the dark corner is a similar exposure to the earlier images, so probably there's extra light shining on the left of the frame.  The moon was out and quite close to the Pleiades, so that's the likely culprit (though it was equally close all through the night!) To be honest, with the bright moon I was really only testing my new dew heaters - I wouldn't normally shoot so close to a bright moon.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this background gradient? These are 2 Raw images from a sequence of 75, which I have done a very quick and dirty stretch on just to show the problem. The first was taken at about 8pm and the background is fairly even. The second was at about midnight and there is an obvious band with the bottom right corner looking darker than the rest of the image. This banding appeared gradually over the last 25 images .  It's not cloud as its present over a long period.  I wondered if it might be dew/ice over part of the lens? It was quite frosty, and in fact this was the first time I was using dew heaters. When I packed up, I checked the lens and it looked clear to me, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Another thought is light shining into the scope? Comparing all the exposures, it's the bottom right that is 'correct' ie it's the rest of the image that has lightened as the evening progressed.

A question about Deep Sky Stacker.  If I wanted to image the same object over several nights, do I have to keep all the original light files and re-stack everything, or could I just retain the Autosave.tiff file from the first night, then re-load it and add more light images?  It would obviously save a lot of storage space if the original raw images could be deleted once they've been stacked.  I'm using a standard DSLR at the moment, so just thinking of adding more raw files to extend the total exposure time.

4 hours ago, malc-c said:

Can you upload pictures of your original board and the new replacement ?  As far as I was aware the HEQ5 mainboard has remained pretty consistent in design.  This is what Microglobe are showing on their site which looks like a standard HEQ5 board to me

 

Here's a comparison of the new and old boards. At first I thought they had sent the wrong item, so I e-mailed Microglobe, but no reply. I then found another thread here on Stargazers Lounge where someone had been sent the same new board from Microglobe and they reported it worked OK.  I haven't tried it out at night but the handset runs through the setup OK, and when I do a star alignment the mount slews in a 'convincing' manner, so it looks OK.  I still have the old board, so I can send that on sometime after the Christmas/New Year period.     

So, an update on my dead HEQ5.  I've bought a replacement board from Microglobe - as noted in another thread on here, this looks like a more modern version compared to the original Skywatcher board.  I've fitted that (and did the Rowan belt upgrade at the same time as I had the motors out to fit the board). The handset now connects to the mount OK and I can slew it about, though I'll need a clear night to try it out properly (and who knows when that will be)!  However, I still can't get the Synscan WiFi adaptor to connect to the mount. I can connect my phone/pc to the adaptor's WiFi network, but it can't find the mount on the network. So, I've two thoughts - either the new board doesn't work with the adaptor (but it does work with the handset?), or I've fried the adaptor at the same time as the main board, but I'm not sure if that's likely or even possible? Any thoughts on checking out the WiFi adaptor welcome.

I think my options now are either a new adaptor at £54 and hope it works with the board, or a USB EQdirect cable at about £35, which is now an option as part of my wiring upgrade was adding a USB hub on the mount. I'm inclined to the latter even though it means more cables.

So, I've come across the thread below, where a similar problem with a blown HEQ5 board is discussed. It mentions the dangers of dangling power cables or connecting/disconnecting cables without first switching off.  In sorting out my cable routing, I've probably done just that - disconnected power cables and left them dangling as I re-routed them. So that's the probable source of the problem.  Oh well, it's all a learning curve.

14 hours ago, malc-c said:

What was the exact message you got ?

The exact message was "Can't connect to M.C. Stand-Alone Mode". With the WiFi dongle it simply says "Can't Find Device."  The Skywatcher manual says this message means the handset is not plugged in correctly, but I've checked it's in correctly, and neither handset nor dongle is talking to the mount.  I'm a bit concerned that without knowing the cause, if I slot in a new/replacement board, that could go as well.  Could just be old age though - I've had it 7 years and it was second hand when I bought it.  Any advice on how to access the control board?

15 hours ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Long shot but I did see a similar thread about no link to MC and it turned out to be the lead between handset and mount, I think handset had power but some of the cat5 cable wires must have been broken. Like I say a long shot but have you got a spare cable anywhere just to try it?

Steve

Thanks for the suggestions - I previously powered it with a 12V mains adaptor. Tried that and no difference. I don't think it's the cable or handset as I can't connect via the WiFi dongle either, which suggests a mount side problem rather than the handset/cable.